In my team's case we would include expectation-setting language in the README.md so that it was clear that the project was not an officially-supported Google product.
As far as I know, no-one ever lost their job for failing to set that expectation. A gentle correction from legal was sufficient to set the world right.
Even if this person violated that process, it is an extreme consequence to fire them for that infraction.
Agreed it's gross if the big problem with execs was that it got social media buzz and it embarrassed official products or something.
[1] https://developers.google.com/workspace/drive/api/samples
It was just speculation about what could be bad enough if they really did have permission to release it, but the OP is being so cagey below now I'm just wondering if they got release permission but misrepresented what they would be releasing or something.
> and is official [1]
FWIW no idea what you're trying to point out on that page unless you mean the one link to a different project in the same github org indicates the org is official, but that never seemed in doubt in this thread of comments.
Idk if the firing was justified since he supposedly followed process and had manager approval, but that's only one side.
HR/Legal very often will give bullshit reasons for termination, since their main job is to shield the company from lawsuits anyway.
Unclear what you're referring to here. Was it "misrepresented what they would be releasing"?
If that's the case, I disagree that the repo still existing is on its face evidence against that theory. It could be a perfectly fine tool, but if you lie on a release checklist, depending on what you lie about, it's easy enough to imagine a fireable offense. There are multiple ways that "it's easier to ask forgiveness" can backfire if there are legal things or organizational things you are knowingly avoiding.
Again, this is just speculation. I wouldn't personally fire someone for releasing a library that got popular, but its also speculation to suggest that's the only reason he was fired.
> its also speculation to suggest that's the only reason he was fired
That's the reason given by Google.
The implication here is that Google is lying about this whole thing for ass-covering reasons.
People here are up in arms because someone potentially misrepresented a tool that Google itself doesn't even care to remove, while Google HR and legal are possibly lying to damage someone's livelihood.
In 2018 I applied for a permission to work on an open-source project, in my own spare time, and I was denied. The problem was the license (AGPL is like poison to corporations), but it's my after-hours side project anyway so I still don't get why it mattered.
They don't really have the teeth to deny it if you live in California, where there are laws partially invalidating those non-compete clauses, but most people will just accept it.